If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

LDAHL...you are an account by trade? How long do you think a mounting national debt can continue without us running out of time? Legislative reform and change through Congressional action is incomprehensible. The other option....Article V is worth a shot, no? Better than open rebellion and revolution.

Good idea or bad idea....everyone ought to realize how close this thing is to being reality. Bae, do you have room for one retired criminal investigator and his family on your overseas second homeland retreat?

How long do you think a mounting national debt can continue without us running out of time? Legislative reform and change through Congressional action is incomprehensible. The other option....Article V is worth a shot, no? Better than open rebellion and revolution.

Looking at history, there are a number of ways to handle a national debt.

Live within your means and run some level of surplus. Not very popular since the Coolidge administration. The Clinton surpluses were a historical/political fluke rather than hardnosed policy.

Devalue or inflate your currency to repay your creditors with cents on the dollar. Often the path of least resistance.

Repudiate your debt Argentine-style. Often plays well domestically when you blame foreigners for your problems.

Grow your economy and increase your tax base relative to the size of the debt. Very hard for governments to accomplish.

Loot someone else's economy. Less fashionable than it once was.

Borrow and spend all you can get away with, and let the next generation or two suffer the consequences. What have they ever done for us?

My take is that if we don't have the will to elect and support representatives to deal with the debt responsibly, what makes you think we would have the will to send representatives to a convention that will?

Looking at history, there are a number of ways to handle a national debt.

Live within your means and run some level of surplus. Not very popular since the Coolidge administration. The Clinton surpluses were a historical/political fluke rather than hardnosed policy.

Devalue or inflate your currency to repay your creditors with cents on the dollar. Often the path of least resistance.

Repudiate your debt Argentine-style. Often plays well domestically when you blame foreigners for your problems.

Grow your economy and increase your tax base relative to the size of the debt. Very hard for governments to accomplish.

Loot someone else's economy. Less fashionable than it once was.

Borrow and spend all you can get away with, and let the next generation or two suffer the consequences. What have they ever done for us?

My take is that if we don't have the will to elect and support representatives to deal with the debt responsibly, what makes you think we would have the will to send representatives to a convention that will?

The simple answer is .....that is the reason George Mason proposed the convention of states in the first place. Because it opens a window of opportunity that otherwise doesn't exist in a Congress that is protecting their butts. 34 states for a convention...38 states and Congress has no say so. I can get in the ear of my state representative, I can call him on the phone, I can go knock on his door. My Congressman is insulated.

I feel justified in pointing out that the last constitutional convention was convened in order to address a situation whereby the federal beuracracy had become untenable and requiring all 13 states to come to a consensus prior to creating governing legislation proved impossible. Therefore, improvements were made or some would argue.....a completely revamped government arose i.e. Our current Constitution .....which has served us quite well.

The difference, though, is that the Articles of Confederation were never particularly effective and ended up being scrapped only 12 years after their creation and less than a decade after their ratification. The constitution, on the other hand, has proven itself to be at least satisfactory now for well over 200 years. Could improvements be made? Undoubtedly. Would improvements actually be made if a convention were held? I'm dubious on that question. And the potential to make things oh so much worse is quite high, at least in my opinion. I guess I'm just not a sunny optimist like you in believing that it would actually be a consensus of citizen input driving the process or even more than remotely driving it.

Looking at history, there are a number of ways to handle a national debt.

Live within your means and run some level of surplus. Not very popular since the Coolidge administration. The Clinton surpluses were a historical/political fluke rather than hardnosed policy.

Devalue or inflate your currency to repay your creditors with cents on the dollar. Often the path of least resistance.

Repudiate your debt Argentine-style. Often plays well domestically when you blame foreigners for your problems.

Grow your economy and increase your tax base relative to the size of the debt. Very hard for governments to accomplish.

Loot someone else's economy. Less fashionable than it once was.

Borrow and spend all you can get away with, and let the next generation or two suffer the consequences. What have they ever done for us?

My take is that if we don't have the will to elect and support representatives to deal with the debt responsibly, what makes you think we would have the will to send representatives to a convention that will?

You forgot a world war. My late centurion neighbor talked about how the depression had ended, but it wasn't until the War and the shortages, where people had to save money until after, that things improved. The depression taught savings, reusing, resourcefulness, and the war helped refine those lessons.

You forgot a world war. My late centurion neighbor talked about how the depression had ended, but it wasn't until the War and the shortages, where people had to save money until after, that things improved. The depression taught savings, reusing, resourcefulness, and the war helped refine those lessons.

My view is that War plunged us into debt...as far back as the Revolutionary War.......and as recently the Gulf Wars which arguably were prosecuted to maintain superpower status through energy independence. Our own resources and technology right here at home make it possible to dominate the world through energy independence....by that's another topic.

Kind of ironic that a warning against use of Article V is based on its risk of something bad coming out of it when the only time in history it was ever used.....we got the Constitution that has preserved our nation for so long.

Kind of ironic that a warning against use of Article V is based on its risk of something bad coming out of it when the only time in history it was ever used.....we got the Constitution that has preserved our nation for so long.

Yes, but then we had Madison and Monroe available for the project. We had the people who wrote the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Today we have people who communicate in hashtags and tweets.